Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shital Anna Walawade, Neminath Anna Walawade, and Suman Anna Walawade, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court seeking a writ of mandamus against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) and pay compensation for their land. The background of the case is that the State had issued a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12th January 1984 for acquiring the petitioners' land bearing Survey No. 1248/1B+2B (new Gat No. 68/1B+2/A) admeasuring 1-H:21-R situated at Village Mirajwadi, Taluka Walwa, District Sangli. A declaration under Section 6 was made on 18th October 1986, and an award was passed on 24th February 1989. During the pendency of an earlier writ petition (No. 236 of 1989) filed by the petitioners challenging the notification and declaration, the petitioners offered alternate land bearing Survey No. 1616/1B at Village Karandwadi instead of the acquired land. The respondents accepted this proposal. Consequently, the earlier writ petition was disposed of on 16th August 1990 with a direction that the petitioners would not be entitled to compensation for the acquired land as they had accepted the alternate land. However, the alternate land was never actually given to the petitioners. The petitioners made several representations to the respondents seeking either the alternate land or compensation, but no action was taken. The legal issues before the court were whether the petitioners were entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act and pay compensation. The petitioners argued that since the alternate land was not provided, they were entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The respondents contended that the acquisition was under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act did not apply. The court analyzed that the acquisition under the 1894 Act was not completed as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The court relied on the principle that the 2013 Act applies to acquisitions where no award has been made or possession not taken. Since the award was made but compensation not paid, the acquisition lapsed. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act. The court directed the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 within four weeks and pay compensation within three months. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Land Acquisition - Petitioners sought mandamus to initiate acquisition under RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for land already acquired under 1894 Act but not compensated - Court held that since the acquisition under 1894 Act was not completed due to non-payment of compensation and the alternate land offered was not provided, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act - Directed respondents to initiate proceedings under Section 11 of the 2013 Act within four weeks and pay compensation within three months (Paras 2-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation for their land which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but for which compensation was not paid due to an offer of alternate land that was not implemented.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to initiate land acquisition proceedings under Section 11 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 within four weeks from the date of the order and pay compensation to the petitioners within three months thereafter. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus
- Land acquisition
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
- Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
- 2013
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Alternate land
- Compensation
- Article 226
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 224
Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2021
R. D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye
Mr.Umesh H.Pawar for the Petitioners, Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent nos.1 to 7
Shital Anna Walawade, Neminath Anna Walawade, Suman Anna Walawade
The State of Maharashtra, The Deputy Director of Settlement, The Additional Commissioner, The District Collector, Sangli, The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), No.9, Sangli & Special Land Acquisition Officer No.9, Sangli, The District Resettlement Officer, Sangli, Ld.Tahsildar, Walwa, Islampur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to initiate land acquisition proceedings and pay compensation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings of the petitioners' land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pay compensation as per the said Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioners' land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 but compensation was not paid because the petitioners had offered alternate land which was accepted but never provided. The petitioners made representations but no action was taken.
Previous Decisions
An earlier writ petition (No. 236 of 1989) filed by the petitioners challenging the notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was disposed of on 16th August 1990 with a direction that the petitioners would not be entitled to compensation as they had accepted alternate land. However, the alternate land was never given.
Issues
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay compensation.
Whether the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was completed so as to bar the application of the 2013 Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners submitted that the acquisition under the 1894 Act was not completed as compensation was not paid and possession was not taken. The alternate land offered was never provided. Hence, the petitioners are entitled to compensation under the 2013 Act.
The respondents argued that the acquisition was under the 1894 Act and the 2013 Act does not apply. The petitioners had accepted alternate land and thus are not entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
Where land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is not completed due to non-payment of compensation and non-taking of possession, and the offer of alternate land is not fulfilled, the landowner is entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to initiate proceedings under the 2013 Act.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus against the Respondents to forthwith initiate land acquisition proceedings of the Petitioners’ land described in prayer clause (b) of the petition under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to pay the compensation amount as per the provisions of the said Act and for other reliefs.
In view of the Respondents accepting the said alternate land offered by the Petitioners, Survey No. 1616/1B from Karandwadi instead of land bearing Survey No. 1248/1B+2/2 of Village Mirajwadi, this Court disposed of the said writ petition on 16th August, 1990 with a direction that the Petitioners would not be entitled to compensation for the acquired land as they had accepted the alternate land.
The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the alternate land was never given to the Petitioners and the Petitioners have made several representations to the Respondents but no action has been taken.
Procedural History
The State issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 12th January 1984. Declaration under Section 6 was made on 18th October 1986. Award was passed on 24th February 1989. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 236 of 1989 challenging the notification and declaration. During pendency, petitioners offered alternate land which was accepted. The writ petition was disposed of on 16th August 1990 with direction that petitioners would not be entitled to compensation. Alternate land was never given. Petitioners made representations. Subsequently, petitioners filed the present Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2021 seeking mandamus under Article 226.
Acts & Sections
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 11
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 4, Section 6
- Constitution of India: Article 226
